Apple Tuesday evening supplied developers with the latest betas of two major upcoming software releases, with iOS 4.2 and iTunes 10.1 available for testing.

Tuesday's release of iOS 4.2 marks the second beta of the software update, due for a public release in November. It is available for the iPad, iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3G, and second-, third- and fourth-generation iPod touch.

People familiar with the latest iOS beta said it is known as 8C5101c.

The first beta of iOS 4.2 was release earlier this month, and marked the debut of AirPrint, Apple's new wireless printing standard for the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. AirPrint will allow iOS device users to print to a shared printer connected to a PC or Mac, or directly to some printers that are compatible with the format.

The previous beta also packed a number of small fixes, including improvements to YouTube and FaceTime. Its release in November will also be the first time iPad owners have had access to the iOS 4 features iPhone and iPod touch users already enjoy, including multitasking and home screen folders.

A beta of iTunes 10.1 was also issued for testing Tuesday, and people familiar with the build said it also supports printing. Just this past weekend, iTunes 10.0.1 was publicly released, bringing improvements to Ping.

Yes, but it this update going to do anything for the millions of 2-g iPod touch users who got a few cosmetic features with iOS 4 (screen folders), but also got stuck with a heavy battery drain and often sluggish response time. My iPhone 3g, still running iOS 3 but with a chip that 100 MHz slower, is now faster than my touch.

If Apple isn't going to 'fix' iOS 4 for iPhone 3G and 2g iPod touch users, why do they claim it's for them? Is all this trouble because iBooks only runs under iOS 4 and Apple wants to sell a few more ebooks?

And how about finally creating Bluetooth keyboard drivers for them? Years ago, Palm PDAs with a tenth the CPU horsepower of a 3G or 2g touch worked fine with Bluetooth keyboards.

Yes, but it this update going to do anything for the millions of 2-g iPod touch users who got a few cosmetic features with iOS 4 (screen folders), but also got stuck with a heavy battery drain and often sluggish response time.

4.2 B2 seems even faster on my 3G but it's hard to say with a fresh install/reboot.

Yes, but it this update going to do anything for the millions of 2-g iPod touch users who got a few cosmetic features with iOS 4 (screen folders), but also got stuck with a heavy battery drain and often sluggish response time. My iPhone 3g, still running iOS 3 but with a chip that 100 MHz slower, is now faster than my touch.

If Apple isn't going to 'fix' iOS 4 for iPhone 3G and 2g iPod touch users, why do they claim it's for them? Is all this trouble because iBooks only runs under iOS 4 and Apple wants to sell a few more ebooks?

And how about finally creating Bluetooth keyboard drivers for them? Years ago, Palm PDAs with a tenth the CPU horsepower of a 3G or 2g touch worked fine with Bluetooth keyboards.

No they are not. Because they just don't care about performance and especially about the performance you personally are getting. In fact, they do it on purpose just to screw you over and they are laughing at you as well.

You have to realise that Apple is just a slap dash outfit that doesn't care about quality at all. They just push out whatever crap and probably don't even test it. All they care about you see, is making money and if the customers get a bad deal, so what?

It actually pleases them if they make bad products. You might call them stupid but they get such a charge out of fooling everyone into thinking they care about quality and performance that they feel losing thousands of customers is worth the chuckles around the lunch table at Apple.

Yes, but it this update going to do anything for the millions of 2-g iPod touch users who got a few cosmetic features with iOS 4 (screen folders), but also got stuck with a heavy battery drain and often sluggish response time. My iPhone 3g, still running iOS 3 but with a chip that 100 MHz slower, is now faster than my touch.

If Apple isn't going to 'fix' iOS 4 for iPhone 3G and 2g iPod touch users, why do they claim it's for them? Is all this trouble because iBooks only runs under iOS 4 and Apple wants to sell a few more ebooks?

And how about finally creating Bluetooth keyboard drivers for them? Years ago, Palm PDAs with a tenth the CPU horsepower of a 3G or 2g touch worked fine with Bluetooth keyboards.

The latest iOS isn't to bad on my iPhone 3G. But honestly what the hell do you expect? Your hardware is old.

On my network I print to a printer using USB on my airport extreme. Connecting the printer to a networked computer makes no sense. You would have to have the computer on line to print from another computer.

Yes, but it this update going to do anything for the millions of 2-g iPod touch users who got a few cosmetic features with iOS 4 (screen folders), but also got stuck with a heavy battery drain and often sluggish response time. My iPhone 3g, still running iOS 3 but with a chip that 100 MHz slower, is now faster than my touch.

If Apple isn't going to 'fix' iOS 4 for iPhone 3G and 2g iPod touch users, why do they claim it's for them? Is all this trouble because iBooks only runs under iOS 4 and Apple wants to sell a few more ebooks?

And how about finally creating Bluetooth keyboard drivers for them? Years ago, Palm PDAs with a tenth the CPU horsepower of a 3G or 2g touch worked fine with Bluetooth keyboards.

Be thankful that Apple even provides updates for older products. Maybe the updates aren't always perfect but Apple will get the bugs out like they always do. Think and compare before complaining too much, HOW many Android products being sold as new today aren't even able to run the latest version of Android? \

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

On my network I print to a printer using USB on my airport extreme. Connecting the printer to a networked computer makes no sense. You would have to have the computer on line to print from another computer.

It should work. AFAIK iPad/iPhone will print to any Bonjour connected printers on the network. So if another computer can see the printer through Airport then iPad/iPhone should be able to print straight to it without needing a computer on.

It should work. AFAIK iPad/iPhone will print to any Bonjour connected printers on the network. So if another computer can see the printer through Airport then iPad/iPhone should be able to print straight to it without needing a computer on.

Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.

No they are not. Because they just don't care about performance and especially about the performance you personally are getting. In fact, they do it on purpose just to screw you over and they are laughing at you as well.

You have to realise that Apple is just a slap dash outfit that doesn't care about quality at all. They just push out whatever crap and probably don't even test it. All they care about you see, is making money and if the customers get a bad deal, so what?

It actually pleases them if they make bad products. You might call them stupid but they get such a charge out of fooling everyone into thinking they care about quality and performance that they feel losing thousands of customers is worth the chuckles around the lunch table at Apple.

I catch your drift Your not English by any chance?

A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...

Yes, so that people with five/six year old computers don't complain that Apple have badly neglected them when they can no longer run iTunes on their computers. Also, does iTunes need more than 4 gigs of ram?

It should work. AFAIK iPad/iPhone will print to any Bonjour connected printers on the network. So if another computer can see the printer through Airport then iPad/iPhone should be able to print straight to it without needing a computer on.

You had to dload a special OS X update that allowed a Mac to act an as intermediary for AirPrint to an Airport Extreme.

Then on that Mac you needed to go to the sys preferences printer pane, remove and re-add the printer to tickle the Bonjour.

I doubt that this has changed in this release.

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.

Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

First an awesome remote application and now an updated iOS 4.2 beta and a new iTunes 10.1. It must be Christmas in September.

Go Apple, go go go...

Talking of new Remote, I played with it for a few minuted last night and it is nice. Is this limited to control only, i.e. it has no ability such as AirVideo has to allow any movie in an iTunes Library to be viewed on any mobile device locally or over IP? I had assumed that the new Remote would obsolete AirVideo but so far I don't see it having those abilities or is this a coming soon feature? Maybe I missed the 'how'.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Just a thought (and I know you said normal consumer play back but ...) ... If a Mac Pro is crunching through a Final Cut Project, Rendering some file conversions in QT Player, editing in Photoshop and running 7 and OS X server in Parallels and uploading several GIGs via FTP and checking Mail and Safari ... all at the same time (A typical day for mine) then perhaps all apps running in 64 bit would make for smoother RAM handling if iTunes were also serving an HD video to someone in another room via ATV? I am not technical enough to know so perhaps iTunes in 32 bit here would make no difference (let alone FCPro!). Anyone know?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.

.

Awesome news to me, thanks for that info . I have been trying to ascertain the answer to this question for ages and always get ten different answers. I wonder if the printer attached to the AE matters? I use a Canon multifunction on my AE for the network.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Um, did you expect them to make the jump to 64 bit on a point release?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oxygenhose

Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?

I don't think anyone actually cares that it is 32 bit. What they are more likely to me complaining about is that it is still written using the old Carbon development tools that Apple publicly chide other large developers for being slow to move off (Microsoft, Adobe, etc). Pretty much everything else written using Cocoa, which allows access to the APIs etc for all the clever goodness that is available like Grand Central etc and so on to allow apps to be more responsive and efficient, and less likely to give you the spinning beachball. iTunes still beachballs me when it starts to rip from a CD, it wouldn't do that if it was written in Cocoa (or at least has the potential to be written in such a way as to prevent it). It would also compile in 64 bit with Cocoa.

Of course, this is all very technical, but the shorthand is that if it's still in 32 bit, it's the most obvious sign that it's been written using deprecated development techniques. It doesn't need 4Gb RAM, and doesn't need to run in 64 bit, but by doing so it would get all sorts of very useful and welcome side effects, such as not sucking quite so much from a performance perspective.

I don't think anyone actually cares that it is 32 bit. What they are more likely to me complaining about is that it is still written using the old Carbon development tools that Apple publicly chide other large developers for being slow to move off (Microsoft, Adobe, etc). Pretty much everything else written using Cocoa, which allows access to the APIs etc for all the clever goodness that is available like Grand Central etc and so on to allow apps to be more responsive and efficient, and less likely to give you the spinning beachball. iTunes still beachballs me when it starts to rip from a CD, it wouldn't do that if it was written in Cocoa (or at least has the potential to be written in such a way as to prevent it). It would also compile in 64 bit with Cocoa.

Of course, this is all very technical, but the shorthand is that if it's still in 32 bit, it's the most obvious sign that it's been written using deprecated development techniques. It doesn't need 4Gb RAM, and doesn't need to run in 64 bit, but by doing so it would get all sorts of very useful and welcome side effects, such as not sucking quite so much from a performance perspective.

I'm a huge fan of Cocoa, but the above is completely false. Cocoa apps are not inherently faster. In fact, they're actually slower, although not meaningfully so. Cocoa is higher level and technically has less direct access to functionality.

There are some apps that would be faster if based upon things like grand central, but I don't think iTunes would benefit much at all. Filtering and displaying this amount of tabular data, isn't something that would benefit much from additional multithreading.

The problem (if you are of the opinion that there is one) is not the language and APIs of the iTunes code base, but rather the age of the iTunes code base. Some programs can mature over time, becoming quite optimized and robust. However, iTunes has had tons of functionality added over the last decade, meaning that it was hard for the code to ever reach a clean and stable state. Also, keep in mind that Apple is trying to maintain perfect parity for the windows version. This means that it has to be reliant on lots of crusty portions of quicktime unless they want have two completely separate code bases for Mac and Windows. But again, this isn't a carbon vs cocoa thing.

The iTunes code started out as SoundJam MP after Apple bought the code and hired the developers. The quality of SoundJam back in 2000 was astonishing. It already felt like it was made by apple. It had responsive live window dragging and scrolling even though the Mac OS had yet to pull these things off successfully. Performance was pretty mind-blowing actually.

A complete rewrite could certainly result in a cleaner architecture. But that is just it. It is the cleaner architecture, not the change in language and APIs that would lead to better performance. Carbon is more than capable for what is required in iTunes. With that said, if doing a complete rewrite, cocoa would be the right choice.

Finally, at this point in the migration to cocoa, we should actually be happy that apple is still basing some of its software on carbon. This means that carbon will be better supported for all those apps which may never get completely rewritten from the ground up.

Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.

You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.

I have been trying to ascertain the answer to this question for ages and always get ten different answers. I wonder if the printer attached to the AE matters? I use a Canon multifunction on my AE for the network.

You get different answers because people keep answering PART of your question.

AirPrinting to a non-enabled printer uses the print drivers contained on a computer running OSX 10.6.5 or Windows and iTunes 10.1. So, you can print to any printer that computer can see -- so long as that computer is running and is on your local wi-fi network. That is a perfectly acceptable solution for someone like me who has one or more desktop computers running at all times. It is not an optimal solution, say, for a home with only notebook devices that may not be powered up, or may be out of the house.

Just a thought (and I know you said normal consumer play back but ...) ... If a Mac Pro is crunching through a Final Cut Project, Rendering some file conversions in QT Player, editing in Photoshop and running 7 and OS X server in Parallels and uploading several GIGs via FTP and checking Mail and Safari ... all at the same time (A typical day for mine) then perhaps all apps running in 64 bit would make for smoother RAM handling if iTunes were also serving an HD video to someone in another room via ATV? I am not technical enough to know so perhaps iTunes in 32 bit here would make no difference (let alone FCPro!). Anyone know?

i can't tell you how irritating these self righteous "I do more than you at once on my comp, that's how important I am" speeches are.

You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.

I would love to point out that, all of the people who argued with me back in JANUARY, about the iPad and it's future printing abilities...

Were. All. Wrong.

That's right, if you argued that there would ever be a reason to print from the iPad instead of using your Mac instead, you were wrong.

Now that the iPad can print, there's still NO reason to. If your printer isn't already plugged into a Mac or PC, you're not printing anything, so you might as well just print from the Mac or PC.
-
I was bitched at by every know-it-all here, who claimed that people actually own WiFi printers (they don't), and also told that the rest of the printers out there are plugged into Airports Time Capsules and other routers.

Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.

.

You will need a Mac or a PC running with printer sharing enabled. This is why I said "SHARED". Turn off the PC/Mac and you can't print anymore. The other poster was specifically asking if he can print WITHOUT having a computer on.

You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.

No you don't. You can enable printer sharing from your MBA and then you can print wirelessly to your TC printer as long as the MBA is on and connected to the network. I really don't care much about printing but I would love to be able to "Save As PDF" just like on my Mac.

Yes, so that people with five/six year old computers don't complain that Apple have badly neglected them when they can no longer run iTunes on their computers. Also, does iTunes need more than 4 gigs of ram?

Most of Apple's 64 bit applications are actually 32 and 64 bit in the same bundle. iTunes is the only program from Apple that isn't 64 bit on my system, and I know these programs still run on the first Intel Macs, which were 32 bit.

Apple made a big deal about how easy it was going to be to have this universal binary that had PPC, Intel, 32, and 64 bit all in one application bundle, so the fact that the application that is at the heart of the iPod/iPhone ecosystem hasn't made that transition yet seems rather odd. They brought the Finder up to 64 bit, and that was based on code even older than iTunes.

Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.

Ah... That kinda sucks, but hey, it's a step in the right direction. Apple takes sure steps, but they are sometimes little steps, at a time. I guess they didn't want to "clog up" the iPad with printer drivers.